I can keep playing this game: “it’s simply unsustainable to have a libertarian immigration policy and a post-national elite that has no concern for sovereignty,” “it’s simply unsustainable to have a libertarian immigration policy and a public school system,” “it’s simply unsustainable to have a libertarian immigration policy and laws requiring emergency rooms to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay.”

At some point you become like the Ptolemaic astronomer who adds epicycles on epicycles to avoid the bitter conclusion that the Earth is not, in fact, at the center of the universe. Occam’s razor would suggest embracing the simpler explanation — mass immigration is incompatible with modern society and should be discontinued. It makes no more sense than geocentric astronomy, and it’s a lot more harmful.

As Jim Bennett is wont to say, “Democracy, immigration, multi-culturalism: Pick any two.”

Don’t we have less of what was once thought to be “modern” than a few decades ago? We don’t have confiscatory income taxes; we’ve reformed welfare; we’ve abolished the “Fairness Doctrine”; gun rights have revived from their coma…

There is absolutely nothing wrong with immigration. What’s wrong is making citizenship mean nothing. People should be able to freely move around the world or off it. What they shouldn’t do is demand all the rights of a citizen.

Second Ken’s comments. The problem is the welfare state. Anybody claiming otherwise CANNOT call themselves either a conservative OR a libertarian. The idea of “modern” society being promoted here is the model of the nation as gated commune.

Am I missing something obvious here? I’ll take democracy and immigration, please. I think it’s absolutely true, you can have either mass immigration or a welfare state – so why are conservatives so against both? Isn’t it obvious which is the bigger problem (I mean really, by far, in just about any measure it’s not even close)?

We had open borders for more than half the history of our country and it worked out pretty well. Whatever cast you want to put on immigrants themselves, the young ones and their children are the only thing that is keeping us out of the demographic hell that is Europe.

I’ll take a Constitutional republic, please. Democracy hasn’t worked anywhere since Ancient Greece, and even there it didn’t really work for the slaves and women.

The immigration warriors ten to be inconsistent in their arguments. Many of them will vehemently insist that they aren’t opposed to immigration, only “illegal immigration.” Yet, if you ask why illegal immigration is harmful, they’ll say things like “they’re taking our jobs.” To the extent that’s a valid concern, it’s valid for legal immigration as well. A legal immigrant can take your job as easily as an illegal immigrant. (Of course, this ignores the economic evidence that immigrants actually create jobs.)

It’s also ironic how many people claim to be libertarians and recognize the failures of drug and alcohol prohibition but think the same policies will work if applied to immigration. If we can’t stop smugglers from sneaking across the border with drug packages, how can we stop workers who are not burdened with illegal substances from crossing the same border?

Common wisdom among politicians says we shouldn’t enact immigration reform until after we “get control of the borders.” That’s like saying we shouldn’t consider prohibition reform until after we get rid of bootlegging — a position Al Capone would have approved.

Many of them will vehemently insist that they aren’t opposed to immigration, only “illegal immigration.” Yet, if you ask why illegal immigration is harmful, they’ll say things like “they’re taking our jobs.”

These issues don’t apply to -legal- immigration:
1) Laws that are fundamentally ignored – particularly from the top down – spawn contempt for other laws.
2) Illegals under-report crime because of the plausibility of the investigation turning up “Hey, he’s an illegal.”
3) Illegals are being raped by Social Security. Fake numbers used to get jobs aren’t the same thing as managing to use identity theft to get money. (Ok, this one sort of happens to legal immigrants and citizens too. But differently. 😉
4) Construction companies in particular are weaselling through here. The complaint (at least, -mine-) isn’t “They’re taking our jobs!” But that because they’re -already- significantly illegal, they start dodging around a laundry list of other “details”. Like OSHA, minimum wage, etc. And being miniscule companies, they’re below the enforcement radar. (But basically obvious if you go through a bidding process.)
5) The pieces add together to make ‘shadow societies’. Meaning a sort of self-segregation and ghettoization. This dramatically hinders the entire ‘melting pot’ approach that really has worked well here.

We aren’t to France levels of failing-to-melt-together, but we are -not- doing as good a job as we have historically. Even when you consider the laundry list of crap each new wave of immigration has had.

These issues don’t apply to -legal- immigration:
1) Laws that are fundamentally ignored – particularly from the top down – spawn contempt for other laws.

You’re right — which is an argument *against* prohibition.

If you watch John Stossel, you will see that what really spawns contempt for law is having *too many* of them. When everything a person might do violates some law, people cease to care about the law. (That idea is not original to Stossel — von Mises said the same thing — but Stossel is seen and read by a lot more people.)

2) Illegals under-report crime because of the plausibility of the investigation turning up “Hey, he’s an illegal.”

Now, that one’s just silly. Illegal immigrants add to the population, they don’t replace it. There are still just as many US citizens and legal immigrants to witness and report crimes. And while an illegal immigrant might be less likely to report a crime, it isn’t entirely impossible.

We aren’t to France levels of failing-to-melt-together, but we are -not- doing as good a job as we have historically.

And our immigration laws are far more restrictive than they have been historically. What does that tell the student?

“Occam’s razor would suggest embracing the simpler explanation — mass immigration is incompatible with modern society and should be discontinued.”

Anyone else catch the little definitions problem here?

Mr. Krikorian picked several things that are the epitome of 20th Century statist government, and then noted that libertarian immigration policies are incompatible with them. Why should anyone be surprised at that discordant problem? Libertarian immigration means giving more freedom to some sets of people. If we keep more freedom from others in society, the ones who are taxed for public schools, those who are charged more for their hospital stays because others don’t pay, and many other such sets of people, the society must then break down. The thing Mr. Krikorian refuses to contemplate is losing those aspects of the “modern” statist society he clings to.

Sailer’s comment is simply inane. There are many non-citizens serving in the US military, many citizens who have never served, many who *would* never serve, and some you quite frankly wouldn’t want to serve. Then there are all those foreign allies who fought side by side with Americans in numerous wars.

Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that prohibition of immigration is generally favored by conservatives. This would be yet another leftist straw man. To my knowledge, conservatives favor regulation of immigration, letting in those who would contribute positively, while keeping out the leaches, thugs, and other undesirables.

@Edward Wright:
If I understand your syllogism correctly, you’re saying that the existence of some foreigners who are friendly proves the non-existence of many who are not. And you say that Steve Sailer is insane?

But the real problem is not the soldiers, but the voters who elect the politicians who tell the soldiers and police what to do. As Gideon Tucker put it, “No man’s life, liberty, and property are safe while the legislature is in session.” The practical argument for libertarianism depends on secure property rights. Property rights depend on voters who take other people’s property rights (and the rule of law in general) seriously enough to make political sacrifices for them. My perception is that the rule of law is hanging by a thread in the US, and it’s worse in most of the rest of the world. Libertarians who want to import voters indiscriminately from the third world have got some explaining to do.

I notice (via Mangan) libertarian economist Don Boudreaux thinks the Janjaweed have the right to move en masse to your hometown. And not just the Janjaweed, but also the Tamil Tigers, the Lord’s Resistance Army, Hezbollah, the Interahamwe – and many more, as the saying goes.

Many, many, more, if Boudreaux had his way, because he believes everyone from everywhere has an inalienable right to move en masse to America – this in a world where more than 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day. I’ve described libertarianism as applied autism, I’m now beginning to realize what a terrible aspersion on autistics that was.